Hearing Proceedings Of 3 19 09

409 views

Published on

This is a transcript of the March 19th Meeting between the Union County Commission, the City of Marysville, the City of Dublin and others regarding the Halls Corner development.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Hearing Proceedings Of 3 19 09

  1. 1. Proceedings March 19, 2009 1 3 City of Marysville and Jerome Township - Utility 1 ----- 2 PROCEEDINGS Union County Commissioners Meeting 3 ----- 4 COMMISSIONER McCARTHY: If we can have ----- 5 your attention and call our meeting to order. March 19, 2009 6 It's right at 3:33, I guess. ----- 7 The purpose of this meeting is to 8 discuss a proposed service area at southern Union 9 County in Jerome Township. At this point, I'll 10 turn the meeting over to Commissioner Lee. 11 COMMISSIONER LEE: Thank you, Tom. 12 For the record, we are here to review 13 the request for service for the area known as 14 Hall's Corner. And for the record, the auditor's 15 parcel numbers are 146000012000 for the Union County Commissioners 16 Wirchainski property, and for the Jacquemin 233 6th Street 17 property it is 146000010000, so I got all the Marysville, Ohio 43040 18 zeros in. Okay? 19 I think, first of all, we'd like to 20 start by just reviewing the history of requests 21 for service for this area. On July the 14th of 22 '06, the City of Dublin sent Union County 23 Commissioners a letter requesting the right to 24 serve this said area. On the 3rd of February of 2 4 1 this year, the City of Marysville sent a letter 1 ATTENDEES 2 2 requesting the right to serve this area. Commissioners: 3 Landowners John Wirchainski sent us the first 3 4 request for service July the 17th of '06, and Tom McCarthy 5 again followed up in February the 27th of this 4 Gary Lee 6 year with the very same request. And Paul and Charles Hall 7 Mary filed a request with us on the 19th of 5 8 February of this year. So that's kind of the 6 Attendees: 9 record and history of when requests were made for 7 (See attached sign-in sheet.) 8 10 service. 9 11 Back in '06, what spurred those 10 12 requests, we had the Duke Realty company that was 11 13 in an option with John Wirchainski, and they had 12 14 plans for a retail center at that time. Duke 13 15 Realty had requested for Marysville to serve that 14 16 project. Somewhere at the end of '07, early '08, 15 17 the Duke Realty company left the retail 16 17 18 development area and let that option expire is my 18 19 understanding. 19 20 Early in '08, the Hunter-Casto 20 21 Development Company got options with both the 21 22 Wirchainskis and the Jacquemins. Those are 22 23 current options as of today. And they have asked 23 24 Marysville to serve. 24 Pages 1 to 4
  2. 2. Proceedings March 19, 2009 5 7 1 So that is kind of the history of all 1 infrastructure serving the subject parcels. In 2 of the requests and the companies and the 2 fact, we question whether the subject parcels are 3 landowners that are involved. 3 even developable for commercial purposes without 4 So at this point, I guess in order of 4 the extraordinary investments in infrastructure 5 who requested service, we will ask Dublin for 5 being considered by Dublin. 6 their public comments. And Paul Hammersmith, city 6 Have the residents within the adjacent 7 engineer for the City of Dublin, I believe, is 7 impacted neighborhoods been notified of this 8 going to be doing that presentation. 8 pending decision by the Commissioners, and if not, 9 MR. HAMMERSMITH: Is it all right to 9 when will their input be sought? 10 sit back here? 10 The City of Dublin would like to better 11 COMMISSIONER LEE: As long as you can 11 understand how the Commissioners can entertain 12 be heard, you can stay. 12 this request from Marysville at this time when the 13 MR. HAMMERSMITH: With me today I want 13 City of Dublin has made numerous formal written 14 to introduce our Dublin team. To my left, Steve 14 requests to be designated as the utility provider 15 Smith, who is our law director. And also to my 15 on July 14, 2006, as Mr. Lee referred to. 16 right, Steve Samuels, who is our environmental 16 Subsequently, we also provided requests on April 17 attorney, also with Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn. 17 5th of 2007 and June 20th of 2007, with no 18 And for those of you who don't know me, I'm the 18 response from the county whatsoever on our 19 director of engineering for the City of Dublin. 19 requests dating back to 2007. 20 And I do have for you Commissioners -- 20 The City of Dublin would ask the 21 if Mr. Rhodes could hand those up to the front -- 21 Commissioners to outline the specific criteria 22 I did want to provide some additional 22 that they will be using to determine who should be 23 documentation that I'll be referring to in a few 23 the provider. We would expect these criteria will 24 moments. 24 fully consider environmental considerations, 6 8 1 Dublin understands the request the 1 quality of existing sewerage collection 2 Commissioners are discussing today is with respect 2 facilities, the financial costs to taxpayers, the 3 to designation of Marysville as a utility provider 3 ability to provide the full range of needed urban 4 to the Wirchainski and Jacquemin properties 4 facilities and services, et cetera. 5 located east of US 33 and adjacent to Dublin. 5 The City of Dublin strongly objects to 6 For a variety of reasons, not the least 6 the designation of Marysville as the utility 7 of which is that the two parcels are located in 7 provider based on fact that there are significant, 8 extremely close proximity to Dublin, less than a 8 well documented environmental issues related to 9 quarter mile away, while being over 12 miles away 9 the manner in which the utility service would be 10 from Marysville, the City of Dublin is here today 10 provided by Marysville. 11 to voice its formal objection to naming Marysville 11 The City of Dublin also questions this 12 as the utility provider as noted on your agenda. 12 service request by Marysville in consideration of 13 The City of Dublin considers itself to 13 its Wastewater Master Study Update in 2007, which 14 be an important and vital member of Union County 14 studied the wastewater infrastructure required 15 with approximately 3,000 of our Dublin residents 15 over the next 40 years to serve the southern 16 residing in Union County, approximately 1,000 of 16 Marysville service area. Specifically, Dublin 17 which are registered voters. Dublin has been 17 would like to understand when and how the numerous 18 investing in Union County over many years. Most 18 and expensive long-term corrective repairs and 19 recently it has committed to invest over $7 19 improvements recommended in the accepted study 20 million, approximately half the cost, for the 20 will be initiated and funded. Certainly it is 21 acquisition of the Glacier Ridge Metro Park, one 21 recognized that the Marysville proposal to serve 22 of the major community facilities serving this 22 this area is completely inconsistent with its own 23 area, and we are contemplating investing millions 23 study. 24 of dollars to substantially enhance the roadway 24 The City of Dublin has long been Pages 5 to 8
  3. 3. Proceedings March 19, 2009 9 11 1 questions you might have. 1 planning, investing, and in some instances 2 COMMISSIONER LEE: Thank you, Paul. 2 providing service to areas within Union County 3 I think we'll save the question part 3 since the early 1980s. Dublin has already 4 till we get to the end of the statements. At this 4 designed, sized, and built its own gravity sewage 5 point, I'd ask Marysville, comments? 5 collection system in this area to serve the 6 MAYOR SCHMENK: Thank you, sir. My 6 subject parcels, and these lines are currently 7 name is Christiane Schmenk. I'm Mayor of 7 located within approximately 1300 feet of the 8 Marysville. I'd like to also introduce our city 8 property lines of the parcels being discussed. 9 administrator, Jillian Froment. I appreciate the 9 Designating Marysville the utility 10 opportunity to be here today and to discuss why 10 provider to this area, who based on their own 11 the City of Marysville wishes to be designated as 11 study needs to make numerous expensive 12 the provider of services. 12 improvements to their currently substandard pump 13 We are here today to formally request 13 station and force main collection and conveyance 14 to be appointed as utility service provider for 14 system, constitutes a wasteful duplication of 15 the parcels of land discussed. And we are 15 public expenditures and a waste of public dollars 16 requesting this designation for several reasons. 16 during a period of extremely difficult economic 17 First, we built our new water 17 circumstances for all public entities. 18 reclamation facility with the intent to be a 18 The City of Dublin questions whether 19 regional provider. 19 Marysville has clearly demonstrated to the 20 Second, if we serve as a regional 20 Commissioners that it has the financial 21 provider, it will allow for orderly development of 21 wherewithal to provide and maintain utility 22 the section of Union County in which the facility 22 service, again in accordance with the 23 is located, southern Union County. 23 recommendations of its own study, to this area as 24 Third, we believe that this will allow 24 well as other areas of Union County, given the 10 12 1 current level of indebtedness of Marysville and 1 us to foster partnerships within Union County with 2 its other financial commitments. 2 all the various governmental levels in the county. 3 At what point did the Commissioners 3 And fourth, serving that area will help 4 give full consideration to the financial benefits 4 us -- provide us with funding and with the 5 Dublin has offered if it is designated the service 5 resources to allow for installation of missing 6 provider for this are? 6 pieces of our infrastructure which will open up 7 What assurances, promises, guarantees 7 the rest of that area of Union County for 8 has Marysville made, if any, to the Commissioners 8 additional services. 9 regarding utility service provision, future 9 And fifth, I'm here to represent that 10 infrastructure investment, and revenue sharing 10 the landowners as well as developers engaged in 11 that would benefit all residents of Union County, 11 discussions with the landowners wish us to be the 12 not just those residing within the City of 12 provider of service. As well as we believe -- and 13 Marysville? 13 I don't dare to speak for other entities here, but 14 And lastly, given the investment and 14 we believe Jerome Township and others located in 15 infrastructure that Dublin has made, we question 15 the area wish us to be the provider of service. 16 the timing and are going to reevaluate that 16 I'm here to represent to you several 17 investment in infrastructure should this area not 17 things also. First, Marysville does have the 18 be designated to Dublin and if the service area be 18 ability to serve the area. We have the capacity 19 removed from that which we intended to provide 19 to serve. Obviously, with our new plant opening, 20 service over many years. 20 we have excess capacity, plenty of ability to 21 We appreciate the opportunity to make 21 serve. 22 these comments and ask for your full 22 Second, we have water and sewer lines 23 consideration. And, again, thank you for inviting 23 currently in the ground in that area on adjacent 24 us to the meeting, and we'll be glad to answer any 24 parcels known as the Hawkins parcel and the Pages 9 to 12
  4. 4. Proceedings March 19, 2009 13 15 1 Skilken parcel, so we are there already. And that 1 community. 2 to me carries a lot of weight and precedent when 2 COMMISSIONER LEE: Okay. At this time 3 you're looking at ability and right to serve. 3 I'd like to call on the Casto-Hunter group. I 4 We also have filed permits to install 4 believe Don Hunter's going to speak. 5 within the area with the Ohio EPA, and we believe 5 MR. HUNTER: I'm Don Hunter with Hunter 6 those will be granted. 6 Realty Partners. We are in partnership -- my firm 7 We have also scoped out the work needed 7 is in partnership with Casto organization. Eric 8 to serve the area. We don't think that it is a 8 Leibowitz from Casto is here with me. We are the 9 burdensome thing to do, and we're ready to get it 9 developers. 10 done. And we have the funding means to do it. We 10 Our organizations are in contract with 11 don't have money in the bank today, but we have 11 Paul and Peg Jacquemin for their property. We're 12 ongoing good-faith negotiations that we believe 12 also in contract with John Wirchainski for his 13 will allow us to put the infrastructure in to 13 property. 14 serve the area. 14 And we're excited to be here. We 15 And secondly, we believe that if you 15 appreciate the consideration that you're giving to 16 grant us, we will have the rightful authority to 16 the request. And we'd like to emphasize that it 17 serve the area. The area in question is within 17 is our goal to develop the property with service 18 the county's 208 planning area. We believe the 18 from the City of Marysville. And we're excited 19 county has the authority under the Ohio EPA 19 about the opportunity and we appreciate your 20 regulations to designate the service provider and 20 consideration of it, and we would ask that you 21 that Marysville is best suited to serve the area. 21 award the sewer service rights to the City of 22 We believe that designating us as the server will 22 Marysville. Thank you. 23 be best for the future development of the area, 23 COMMISSIONER LEE: Okay. 24 best for building -- fostering partnerships in the 24 MR. SMITH: Mr. Lee, could I make a 14 16 1 area, and we believe again it will allow for 1 couple comments now? Or if you're done with 2 orderly development. So those are the reasons for 2 everybody -- 3 our request. 3 COMMISSIONER LEE: I was going to allow 4 We thank you for allowing us to be here 4 the public to make some comments, and then we'll 5 today, and we also are available for questions if 5 go back then to each of the entities for any 6 you wish. 6 questions they have, and I have a series of 7 COMMISSIONER LEE: Okay. 7 questions also. From the public? 8 Jerome Township trustees. 8 MR. SCHULZE: Yes. Dennis Schulze. 9 MR. THOMAS: We're going to make this a 9 I'm an attorney, represent a number of landowners 10 little simpler, a little easier. Jerome maintains 10 and option holders in the area and who would use 11 a position that whoever the county determines to 11 the same service line. And they have all asked me 12 be the service provider -- you know, it's up to 12 to speak on behalf of Marysville being the 13 you -- but we also feel it's very necessary that 13 provider. They have a better level of comfort 14 annexation is not a necessary item at this point. 14 with Marysville at this point in time. 15 SPEAKER: One other thing I would like 15 COMMISSIONER LEE: Other public 16 to address is the subject come up about the 16 comment? 17 community services. And as most of you in this 17 MR. HOCHSTETLER: Glenn Hochstetler. 18 room know, that we are probably blessed with some 18 We have a small business along the Industrial 19 of the best EMS fire and police services in the 19 Parkway corridor. And in December of 2007 we met 20 area. So that is, to us, a moot point. We know 20 with the City of Marysville council and provided 21 that we cannot do that. 21 55 signatures, small businesses that voiced their 22 Just to reiterate what Mr. Thomas says, 22 concern that they like the services with the City 23 annexation to us is not an option that we would 23 of Marysville and would like to continue to do so. 24 want to pursue. We would like to maintain our own 24 We could have gotten very many more, but given Pages 13 to 16
  5. 5. Proceedings March 19, 2009 17 19 1 that we had a limited amount of time to do that, 1 residents, 3,000-or-so-odd people, there's a 2 that's all we got, but I don't think that's 2 couple big homeowners associations that should get 3 changed since then. 3 some notice so they have the opportunity to come 4 COMMISSIONER HALL: What date was that? 4 and speak to their commissioners. 5 MR. HOCHSTETLER: That was December the 5 I just want to point out for the 6 6th of 2007. 6 record, I'm sure you know this, in your file, in 7 MR. JACQUEMIN: Paul Jacquemin with 7 August of 2006, is a letter from the mayor, then 8 Jacquemin Farms. And I guess just the comments 8 mayor of Marysville, saying, and I quote: 9 that we're very interested in having Marysville 9 Clearly, the City of Marysville has no desire to 10 supply the sewer and water to our location for 10 serve this area with either water or sewer. We 11 basically -- the number one reason is that the -- 11 feel there are numerous technical problems 12 I've worked and been in the Marysville area for 40 12 involved in us serving the area, and the City of 13 years. I've worked two, three, and four jobs most 13 Dublin already has facilities and infrastructure 14 of my life. I'm approaching retirement. And we'd 14 in this area more adequate and more easily 15 like to be able to deal with somebody that's 15 provided. 16 willing to develop our property so that we can 16 That was in '06. And then they had a 17 retire comfortably. Maybe that's a bad thing at 17 study done, and I understand that the letter that 18 this point in time. 18 is there today that the mayor has filed or that 19 SPEAKER: Pardon me. If I could also 19 Marysville has filed said that these have been -- 20 add -- modify my comments by adding that it is the 20 I don't know if they've been addressed -- I think 21 develop -- some comments from John Wirchainski, 21 it says they've been addressed. I don't know what 22 the property owner. I spoke with him this 22 that means. But I just kind of would like to make 23 morning, and John wanted to again reiterate his 23 that point. 24 letter in reiteration and reaffirmation of his 24 And also the mayor has indicated, 18 20 1 desire to be served by Marysville, and asked me to 1 talked about the Skilken property. Jerome 2 communicate that on his behalf. He also asked 2 indicated that they felt that if somebody -- that 3 that I reference the fact that his family are 3 annexation may perhaps not be necessary to get 4 long-time Jerome Township residents. They've been 4 service. On file at the EPA is a letter from the 5 farmers for generations, multiple generations. 5 Skilken Corporation asking that Dublin be their 6 And his desire and his goal is to respect the 6 provider in this area. And we're going to put 7 township and honor that township history and to 7 that in the packet of information that we were 8 remain in the township and to receive services 8 going to furnish to you. And also, we would 9 from Marysville. And they're looking forward to 9 indicate to you that while I appreciate 10 not only obtaining the Jerome Township and Union 10 Mr. Schulze has a number of clients, and the other 11 County ties but to growing that relationship with 11 people have a number of clients, the subject 12 the City of Marysville. 12 matter here today is only these properties, as I 13 COMMISSIONER LEE: Mr. Smith? 13 understand what is before the commission. So 14 MR. SMITH: Okay. I just have a couple 14 while that's good information to have, I don't 15 quick comments. First of all, as Paul indicated, 15 think it's pertinent to what you're here to decide 16 when we got your notice, I think it was Thursday 16 today. 17 or Wednesday, whenever it was, we attempted to 17 It would be our -- and we'd also point 18 reach our partners, Columbus, and couldn't get 18 out to you that we are fully aware that there's 19 anybody here on such short notice. And I do think 19 been an application, PTI application, filed by 20 that they'll have something to say, and we're 20 Marysville with the EPA, and there are as of today 21 hopeful you will schedule a second hearing on this 21 numerous objections filed by the City of Dublin, 22 so we'll have that opportunity. 22 and we're expecting the same kind of thing from 23 Secondly, we think that the residents 23 Columbus. And that's from conversations I've had 24 who live abutting this property, the Dublin 24 with Columbus. Pages 17 to 20
  6. 6. Proceedings March 19, 2009 21 23 1 So we would like the opportunity to put 1 have the full ability to go back and amend that 2 together for you some materials we've talked from 2 agreement also because this is within the 3 today and some other materials for your further 3 negotiated area per our agreement, so we have the 4 consideration, and we'd look forward to presenting 4 option to go back and discuss and negotiate how 5 those along with our residents and along with the 5 this area gets served. 6 City of Columbus the next time you schedule this 6 MR. SMITH: That's the other reason we 7 for hearing. Thank you very much. 7 want Columbus here, because there's some things 8 COMMISSIONER LEE: Okay. I've got a 8 going on you need to be aware of. I'm sorry we 9 series of questions for numerous entities. Any 9 couldn't get them here. Couldn't reach them in a 10 other public comment at this point? Okay. 10 couple days. 11 I'd like to ask Dublin a series of 11 MR. HAMMERSMITH: I think Mr. Samuels 12 questions, if I could. Paul, you're probably 12 has a comment. 13 going to be the best able to answer these, but 13 MR. SAMUELS: Let me add a couple of 14 Steve, you might also, too. And again, some of 14 points to the 208 plan and the circumstances under 15 these questions I know the answers to, but I would 15 which Dublin can provide sewer service under the 16 like them for the record. 16 208 plan. One is in accordance with an 17 MR. SMITH: That's fine. 17 annexation. Two is if there's an agreement 18 COMMISSIONER LEE: Can Dublin serve 18 between a property owner who wants service from 19 this area without annexation? 19 Dublin or there is by agreement such as this 20 MR. HAMMERSMITH: Currently, no. 20 circumstance where Dublin would want to have 21 COMMISSIONER LEE: Would -- 21 Dublin -- where Union County would designate 22 MR. SMITH: Excuse me. That's not 22 Dublin as the service provider. Under any of 23 quite accurate. What the EPA has said, without 23 those three circumstances, my understanding of the 24 annexation or without an agreement with the 24 208 plan is Ohio EPA would allow Dublin to go 22 24 1 landowner. 1 ahead and provide service under any of those three 2 MR. HAMMERSMITH: Correct. 2 alternatives. 3 COMMISSIONER McCARTHY: Can you expand 3 COMMISSIONER McCARTHY: Without 4 on that? What does that mean? 4 annexation? 5 MR. SMITH: That's from the 208 plan. 5 MR. SAMUELS: Correct. 6 They're quoting the 208 plan to us. And, again, 6 COMMISSIONER McCARTHY: As to the 7 we'd be happy to put that in the materials. It 7 agreement with the City of Columbus that you have 8 means -- for example, Mr. Skilken has asked us to 8 that actually processes your waste, if I'm 9 serve. We intend to annex Mr. Skilken. But if we 9 understanding Mr. Hammersmith, what he's saying is 10 didn't annex him, he has an agreement in his hands 10 that the agreement there currently would not allow 11 he's going to execute, he has an agreement between 11 for it? 12 the city and Mr. Skilken. And we also expect 12 MR. HAMMERSMITH: It requires it within 13 that, because this is an accurate statement, that 13 the exclusive service areas, yes. And negotiated 14 the 208 plan currently has that language in it, is 14 area, it's always considered a consent area, so we 15 currently under review by the State. So -- 15 need the blessing of one another to serve that 16 COMMISSIONER LEE: A little further on 16 area. Currently the practice has been annexation. 17 that, Steve, your current agreement with Columbus, 17 But that also Mr. Smith indicated we've discussed 18 does it require annexation to be able to serve? 18 doing so without annexation. That we would -- 19 MR. HAMMERSMITH: That's what I was 19 could mutually agree to not annex and provide 20 going to respond or add to my answer is that no, 20 service. 21 under the current agreement, you're correct. But 21 COMMISSIONER HALL: Have you done that? 22 Dublin and Columbus could choose to amend that 22 MR. HAMMERSMITH: Currently we have 23 agreement and provide service without annexation. 23 not, no, sir. 24 That is what the current agreement says. But we 24 MR. SMITH: However, I would point out Pages 21 to 24
  7. 7. Proceedings March 19, 2009 25 27 1 that Columbus, the reason we think it's important 1 in terms of revenue generation than the retail use 2 to be here, that Columbus has allowed that in the 2 would be, retail would probably be. But yet the 3 last few years in two areas. One being New 3 office might be a wash in terms of sewage 4 Albany, the other being down in Pickaway County. 4 generation. 5 And they have another request pending. So again, 5 COMMISSIONER LEE: What is the current 6 these are things that you need to be aware of from 6 capacity of Dublin to serve this area? I started 7 Columbus. 7 out when I was looking at these questions to ask, 8 COMMISSIONER LEE: Next question. This 8 you know, really we're talking in this particular 9 one I realize may be a council question, but if 9 petition 100 acres, give or take. Obviously, you 10 you were to be awarded the service area, would 10 have the capacity to serve that 100 acres. 11 Dublin require annexation? 11 MR. HAMMERSMITH: Correct. 12 MR. SMITH: I'll try to answer that. I 12 COMMISSIONER LEE: Beyond that, what is 13 think Dublin is open to discussing serving the 13 Dublin's capacity to serve? I'm looking at -- I 14 area without annexing. I mean, I can't speak for 14 think this commission is more concerned about the 15 the seven of them. I've been there a long time, 15 total area in the southeast section of the county 16 but I wouldn't presume to speak for them. But 16 than we are specifically this 100 acres. I know 17 that's a question I would be happy to get answered 17 that some would like to detach this hearing and 18 for you on a hypothetical basis. 18 say this only deals with 100 acres. In my mind 19 COMMISSIONER LEE: And then follow-up 19 personally, this is not -- this is a decision that 20 to that, given the current zoning of Jerome 20 is much bigger and has more ramifications than 21 Township, would Dublin allow this project to be 21 just the 100 acres that would be awarded for the 22 built as proposed if we were to award you the 22 service area. 23 service area? 23 So I guess really what I'm trying to 24 MR. HAMMERSMITH: The answer to that is 24 say is, could Dublin be in the position to be the 26 28 1 that the current zoning is not consistent with our 1 regional provider for the southeast section of 2 existing or recently adopted community plan which 2 Union County? 3 shows more of an office/mixed use/research/medical 3 MR. HAMMERSMITH: Let me answer that 4 sort of use than strictly a big box retail. And 4 with a couple different responses. Unlike 5 quite honestly, we think that the current zoning 5 Marysville, we're in a position today to serve 400 6 is too intense for the area given the traffic that 6 acres with existing capacity by gravity service 7 it generates. So that's why we would fall back to 7 with 21-inch sewer that was constructed in 1982. 8 a less intense use, predominantly employment-based 8 It was extended to this area. So we can provide 9 and not retail-based. 9 immediate service with no improvements other than 10 COMMISSIONER LEE: And that is -- 10 the investment in extending the line, which is -- 11 follows up my next question, which Paul, you and I 11 would be no different than Marysville having to 12 have discussed, but if it were to be annexed, we 12 extend the line. But we don't have any system 13 would expect that it would probably be rezoned to 13 improvements to make, unlike Marysville who has 14 a lesser intensive use? 14 substantial system improvements to make. 15 MR. HAMMERSMITH: I guess you would 15 Beyond the 400 acres, we would have to 16 have to define less intense use. Less intense 16 start making some system improvements, which 17 could be traffic, it could be sewage generation. 17 wouldn't be any different than Marysville having 18 So I guess I would ask you, Mr. Lee, to qualify 18 to make system improvements also. 19 that. 19 In terms of being the regional 20 COMMISSIONER LEE: Well, I think in 20 provider, you're talking several million dollars. 21 terms of are we talking retail or office or -- 21 I think we all have to make a financial impact 22 MR. HAMMERSMITH: Yeah. It would be 22 assessment as to given the land uses and the 23 mixed use. I think it would be a mixed use with 23 development area whether -- development of the 24 an employment emphasis. It would be more intense 24 area, whether that makes sense to invest in that Pages 25 to 28
  8. 8. Proceedings March 19, 2009 29 31 1 infrastructure and provide that sort of system not 1 completion, the water reclamation facility has 2 knowing how the area would develop. 2 capacity of 8 million -- of processing 8 million 3 Could we do that? Yes. We could run 3 gallons of waste per day, can be easily, quickly 4 an interceptor sewer from the west branch and get 4 expanded to go up to 12 million gallons per day, 5 to the area. We've actually evaluated that. It's 5 and ultimately full buildout would be at 24 6 probably a $20 million -- a rough estimate -- 6 million gallons per day. So there's plenty of 7 investment in infrastructure. Probably no 7 capacity there in the plant. 8 different than the $22 million in costs that 8 We don't agree with Mr. -- with 9 Marysville would have to expend to get south of 9 Dublin's characterization that substantial system 10 an -- extend south to the area. But our system we 10 improvements are needed. We do have work to be 11 believe would not include pump stations and force 11 done very similar to what Dublin would, 12 mains and kind of a leapfrog system that exists 12 installation of some additional lines, but that 13 today. 13 doesn't in our minds count as substantial system 14 COMMISSIONER LEE: Okay. Thank you. 14 improvements. We also do need to rebuild some 15 COMMISSIONER HALL: Paul, you presented 15 pump stations. But any work that needs to be done 16 to LUC these maps and drawings of kind of the 16 can be done within a year, probably closer to six 17 planning area that you -- that your city has 17 months time frame. And the funds are in a very 18 looked at in that area. Taking this concept here, 18 manageable cost range, so we have capacity and we 19 what kind of an infrastructure would you have to 19 have the ability to do what's needed. 20 do to meet these kind of needs? 20 COMMISSIONER LEE: Okay. And the 21 MR. HAMMERSMITH: In order to get up in 21 follow-up to that, then, is Marysville in position 22 that northwest area, that would really be referred 22 and willing to become the regional provider for 23 to as an augmentation sewer that would come from 23 southeast Union County? 24 the interceptor. We don't have it sized, but we 24 MAYOR SCHMENK: Yes, we are. 30 32 1 know we can get there because it's downhill from 1 COMMISSIONER LEE: Okay. What -- if 2 42, all the way to historic Dublin. So that's why 2 you were to be awarded this service area, what 3 we are pretty confident that we can serve it by 3 does it mean to Marysville as far as your debt 4 gravity with that augmentation sewer. 4 structure, debt payments, in those areas? 5 Mr. Hall, to be able to answer size, we 5 MAYOR SCHMENK: It would, we believe, 6 have not done that sort of detailed analysis. But 6 shore us up or shore up our future to be a 7 we know that we're in the ballpark of several 7 regional provider. We believe that this 8 million dollars. I think that's regardless of who 8 particular couple parcels of land are very 9 the utility service provider is. 9 important to the development of the region, and 10 COMMISSIONER LEE: Thank you. 10 based on the agreements that we know can be 11 Some questions for Marysville. 11 reached with the landowners and the developers, 12 Obviously, you physically cannot annex this 12 and we hope with Jerome Township and the county, 13 property because you have no property connecting. 13 we believe we will have the mechanisms in place to 14 So annexation is not an issue for you. 14 be able to really finish out the lines that are 15 MAYOR SCHMENK: No. We have no 15 needed to serve southeast Union County. So this 16 intention to annex the area. 16 is a critical piece for us. Again, we think it's 17 COMMISSIONER LEE: Are you in agreement 17 a critical piece for the region and is very 18 to serve this project as it was proposed by 18 important to orderly development of that part of 19 Hunter-Casto? 19 Union County. 20 MAYOR SCHMENK: Yes, we are. 20 COMMISSIONER LEE: Mr. Hunter, what is 21 COMMISSIONER LEE: And describe to this 21 your commitment to this project? 22 commission Marysville's capacity and ability to 22 MR. HUNTER: We are absolutely 23 serve the southeast quadrant of the county. 23 committed to the project. We're actively working 24 MAYOR SCHMENK: As currently nearing 24 with users, and we're fully committed and prepared Pages 29 to 32
  9. 9. Proceedings March 19, 2009 33 35 1 to go forward. 1 maybe the mayor was the one that was changing the 2 COMMISSIONER HALL: A question that 2 position of the city? 3 I've got here and I wrote down earlier, 3 MAYOR SCHMENK: Yes. Council has 4 Mr. Hammersmith, related to the study that was 4 wanted to serve the area since the date I took 5 done -- when was that study done? 5 office and before, I believe. 6 MR. HAMMERSMITH: August of 2007 was 6 MR. HAMMERSMITH: I have to 7 the update study. 7 respectfully disagree with the city administrator 8 COMMISSIONER HALL: What does that 8 in terms of the August 2007 update study that was 9 study say about this area? 9 provided by Malcolm Pirnie. I would suggest that 10 SPEAKER: This particular area is not 10 the commissioners at least read the executive 11 specifically addressed in the study. In -- 11 summary of that study. That was not simply a rate 12 Marysville's development of the wastewater 12 study that looked at the financial feasibility. 13 treatment plant, also called the water reclamation 13 It was a technical study that was looking and was 14 facility, has been based to be able to identify 14 commissioned to understand the infrastructure 15 necessary funds to get back -- or to build that. 15 needed to serve the area over the next 40 years 16 We did present the study. We have, since that 16 and put a cost to that infrastructure. 17 study has been published over several areas that 17 And I believe if you look at that 18 are outside of the specific area that was analyzed 18 study, that south of 42, down to State Route 161, 19 for the water reclamation plant, so this was used 19 was $22 million worth of recommended improvements 20 simply to be able to show the fee structure that 20 within that study. It was not a rate analysis. 21 was needed to go forth and build this plant. But 21 It was a feasibility study commissioned by 22 it's not considered by our council or the current 22 Marysville for the purposes of understanding how 23 administration as the line which we will not cross 23 to serve the area because that was not 24 for service, and -- 24 specifically addressed in the initial study of the 34 36 1 MAYOR SCHMENK: I guess if I could add, 1 wastewater master plan. 2 I think maybe what has changed since that 2006 2 And furthermore, if you look at the 3 letter was sent by the former mayor, when I took 3 facility planning area that's an exhibit in that 4 office I came in with the view that we really -- 4 document, and I do suggest once again that the 5 Marysville wanted to be a regional partner, and I 5 Commissioners look at that, this area was not 6 think perhaps that has changed. My outlook from 6 studied. Yes, the Woods of Labrador and other 7 the beginning was to work well with other 7 areas were provided service outside that 8 jurisdictions, and that included Jerome Township, 8 facility's planning area, but I believe those 9 and to find the resolution we believed would help 9 areas were already under development at the time 10 the township and help the county. There was a 10 that that study was commissioned and being 11 phrase in that letter I believe referring to 11 finished, but this was not within that facility's 12 technical problems, and those have been looked at. 12 planning area. It's not within the exclusive 13 We have solutions. We've costed out what would 13 service area defined by the asset purchase 14 have to be addressed and we know that it's 14 agreement that went into effect February 1st of 15 feasible. We have a different public service 15 2006 between the county and Marysville. It was 16 director than we did then. Again, different 16 never contemplated. So I think that is really a 17 philosophies of our city engineer. And all of our 17 mischaracterization to say that it was an area 18 people are on board working as a team to do what's 18 that was planned to be served, not until just 19 needed to serve the area. 19 recently. 20 COMMISSIONER McCARTHY: I'm just 20 MAYOR SCHMENK: Commissioners, if I 21 curious, when you took office, did you find that 21 could respond to Mr. Hammersmith, again, just to 22 you had to sell city council on the idea of 22 talk about what that Malcolm Pirnie study said and 23 servicing this area, or did you find that council 23 what the City of Marysville has done with it. We 24 was pretty receptive and excited to hear that 24 all know that outside consultants can say what Pages 33 to 36
  10. 10. Proceedings March 19, 2009 37 39 1 they want to and then it is in the client's 1 partner with communities, and you say we the 2 complete discretion to do what they decide is 2 private sector are willing to invest tens of 3 needed. 3 millions and sometimes hundreds of millions of 4 And frankly, the Malcolm Pirnie study 4 dollars to be at risk in partnership with the 5 that recommended $22 million of needed 5 communities in which we serve and where we live, 6 improvements has been characterized by our council 6 there is a -- that is many times the catalyst for 7 and others as kind of recommending the Cadillac 7 expanding the infrastructure. 8 when perhaps the Ford Escort would do. And we 8 We clearly as the private sector here, 9 have looked at it and we have definitely decided 9 as Casto-Hunter, clearly understand what needs to 10 that we do not need to make all of the 10 occur in terms of extension of the utilities. We 11 improvements recommended. We can make those 11 have looked at the engineering studies. We are 12 recommended much more cheaply. And it again was 12 absolutely without question comfortable with them. 13 something that was nice to have, not necessary to 13 And I think sometimes there's an irony in what 14 follow, and we put plans in place that are 14 people say when you must put the chicken in front 15 reasonable and will cost a lot less than $22 15 of the egg, or the cart in front of the horse. 16 million. 16 But here what we're saying is we're committed to 17 MR. SMITH: I'm glad to hear they've 17 the community. We're committed to the area. 18 done another study and they have had that study 18 We're willing to invest our hard-earned capital 19 evaluated, and perhaps they could furnish that to 19 and go at risk in order to not only bring service 20 the Commissioners and the City of Dublin and 20 to the community and to build infrastructure, but 21 Columbus. We've got a park out there we spent $7 21 we're there to do that to expand the tax base and 22 million on and this study that they commissioned, 22 to help the municipalities expand their revenue 23 we didn't commission it. If there's another 23 base to serve their community. 24 study, we'd like love to see. We'd love to see 24 And so I'm not sure of an argument that 38 40 1 how they evaluated and decided they didn't need 1 says we ought to have the pipes in the ground 2 the $22 million worth -- we'd even be happy to 2 first or we ought to have the pipes in the ground 3 take a look at that and comment on it. We have 3 second. We're here to work with the community and 4 the executive summary here. You have access to 4 invest our dollars, and we're confident that we 5 the study. And perhaps they could give us all a 5 can succeed with the City of Marysville, Jerome 6 copy of the new study they have that evaluated the 6 Township. 7 Malcolm Pirnie study. Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER LEE: In this development, 8 COMMISSIONER LEE: Okay. Mr. Hunter, 8 are you willing to make some off-site 9 what is the time frame of this project? 9 improvements? 10 MR. HUNTER: Our goal would be to be 10 MR. HUNTER: We are. 11 able to break ground within the next 14 to 18 11 MR. HAMMERSMITH: Can I ask what those 12 months and then deliver the project within 12 12 are and what the dollar amount of those off-site 13 months from that point in time. We will phase 13 investments would be? 14 the -- that would be the first phase. Our plan is 14 MR. HUNTER: We're happy to invest in 15 to phase the 100-acre project over the next about 15 roads and utilities. We're currently finalizing 16 two or three years. And I think I would like -- 16 our agreements and at this point in time I think 17 please rule me out of order, Commissioner, but 17 the specifics of those are yet to be worked out. 18 it's interesting to hear the discussion about 18 MR. HAMMERSMITH: Would you be willing 19 economic development, about extension of 19 to invest in the interchange and the road 20 infrastructure. 20 improvements that Dublin has planned and designed? 21 Having been involved in the real estate 21 MR. HUNTER: I've already invested in, 22 community here for 20 years, it's almost a 22 as a City of Dublin taxpayer the last 20 years, so 23 question of the chicken or the egg. When you 23 I've invested in them -- 24 partner with public service entities and you 24 MR. HAMMERSMITH: As a developer, would Pages 37 to 40
  11. 11. Proceedings March 19, 2009 41 43 1 you be willing -- not as a resident, but as a 1 And at the end of the day I would agree 2 developer, would you be willing to invest in the 2 with Commissioner Lee, that we are looking at this 3 interchange? 3 not -- at least I'm not -- as an isolated piece of 4 MR. HUNTER: On this condition. You 4 property. There's a much bigger issue in play 5 agree to the partnership that we've proposed with 5 here, and that is how do we make sure that the 6 the community, and you agree to our zoning, and 6 entire region gets services that are affordable 7 you allow us to bring the property in as we've 7 and can be done in a timely manner. 8 proposed and we've had zoned in Jerome Township, 8 I would just like to also point out to 9 with full agreement -- and full agreement we're 9 the folks in Dublin that the metro park happened 10 not going to put the cart ahead of the horse on 10 because of a cooperative spirit at that time, and 11 this one. 11 I don't recall Dublin ever at any of their 12 MR. SMITH: Excuse me, Don. I want to 12 meetings saying we're going to put the most amount 13 be sure of something you just said. Did you say 13 of money in this project so we get to call the 14 that we would consider annexation, what you just 14 shots. That was not the spirit then, and I'm a 15 said, you just said allow me to bring the property 15 little disappointed to kind of hear some of that 16 in. What did you mean by that? 16 creep through today. I understand there's going 17 MR. HUNTER: No. You said this. We 17 to be significant resources put in play in 18 are here today fully committed to Union County, to 18 southern Union County. But I would just -- I 19 Jerome Township, and to Marysville. 19 would just encourage people, we're going to get 20 MR. SMITH: Thank you. 20 one shot at doing this right. And so instead of 21 MR. HUNTER: Your question to us was -- 21 trying to nitpick at each other, we need to figure 22 the question was, would you allow us to develop 22 out what's the best use of this property. 23 the property as we planned to develop it, and your 23 What I'm hearing from Mr. Hunter, I 24 answer was no. So we can't come in. 24 want to make sure I heard you correctly, and that 42 44 1 MR. SMITH: Thank you. 1 is you have a very clear plan, a business plan to 2 COMMISSIONER LEE: Tom, do you have 2 develop this property; is that correct? 3 questions? 3 MR. HUNTER: Yes, sir. 4 COMMISSIONER McCARTHY: Just a couple. 4 COMMISSIONER McCARTHY: What is your 5 We welcome public input. It's why we had this 5 expected time line to be able to fulfill that, if 6 meeting. And I would assure you that the purpose 6 services were available? 7 of this meeting is the start of the fact-finding 7 MR. HUNTER: If services were 8 process. I think we all acknowledge the 8 available, we would -- our goal would be to -- our 9 significant investments Dublin's made into 9 intention is to break ground within a 12-month 10 southern Union County, but I also point out 10 period, complete construction within another 12 11 there's some other people in this room that have 11 months. And that would be the first phase. So we 12 also made fairly significant investments into this 12 would be delivering buildings within 24 months. 13 county. And I appreciate the fact that Dublin 13 And then we proceed orderly through a phased 14 is -- with your significant resources that a 14 development which we would hope would be completed 15 planning department have looked at southern Union 15 within another 12- to 24-month time frame. So 16 County and have given us some ideas. And I was 16 we're looking at a two- to four-year time frame 17 encouraged several years ago when primarily on 17 for completion. 18 Commissioner Lee's initiative, and some of the 18 COMMISSIONER McCARTHY: Is it fair to 19 other people in this room, there was an effort to 19 ask -- maybe you don't have these numbers today -- 20 try to create a cooperative core. And 20 to give our board some sense of the economic 21 unfortunately, the reason we're here today, I 21 significance of this -- of this project in terms 22 believe, is because that process broke down. And 22 of jobs and tax base and -- 23 we're being put in a position like Solomon of 23 MR. HUNTER: Let me -- we have prepared 24 assigning half the baby, who's going to get what. 24 much of that. I don't have it off the top of my Pages 41 to 44
  12. 12. Proceedings March 19, 2009 45 47 1 head, but I think we can give you an order of 1 impacted by this use, and not those of Marysville, 2 magnitude of the investment. And I'm going to 2 that will have to live with it each day. 3 check a little bit here with Eric, but -- roughly 3 COMMISSIONER HALL: I've got a question 4 we would develop from a -- the Wirchainski 4 for Jerome Township trustees. When was the land 5 property first and the Jacquemin property second. 5 that we're looking at here today zoned for this 6 Each one of the properties would be a $50 million 6 permit? 7 private investment, with a total of 100 million. 7 MR. HAMMERSMITH: May of 2007. 8 And then in terms of the tax revenue, there are 8 SPEAKER: 2007. 9 very significant -- they come in a couple 9 SPEAKER: You've got to understand that 10 different avenues. And we can report back to you 10 process took about a year. 11 on that at a later date. 11 SPEAKER: It was a while for that 12 COMMISSIONER McCARTHY: I think it 12 process to take place, but there was a lot of 13 would be helpful, as we're trying to balance our 13 people that came out, our constituents from the 14 revenues and cost, we have some sense of what it 14 township, not to mention there was people from the 15 means because what I'm also hearing you say is if 15 development that -- both of them are saying that 16 this project -- if we were to deem this area to be 16 would be across from the Gorden piece. But as a 17 served by Dublin, then it would be your 17 whole, everything from our zoning board was taken 18 expectation that you would or would not go forward 18 into consideration on that and felt it was the 19 with your project? 19 best fit for the use in that area. 20 MR. HUNTER: Our expectation is in 20 COMMISSIONER McCARTHY: Correct me if 21 response to -- we're reacting to what has been 21 I'm wrong, Andy, but at one point 407 -- the 22 said here today at the table from Dublin and what 22 parcel that -- that came into play, I think at one 23 has been communicated to us outside of this room, 23 point it was proposed to be an auto dealer or 24 is that Dublin does not agree nor will consent to 24 something, but we -- that piece was rezoned and 46 48 1 our development plan. So by -- you know, from 1 then it went to referendum and the voters of 2 what we've heard from Dublin today -- clearly I 2 Jerome Township upheld the zoning that you had put 3 don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but we 3 in place. Is that correct? 4 have a plan to develop the property, get it zoned 4 MR. THOMAS: That's the piece south of 5 within Jerome Township, the first phase to be 5 the Duke site that actually butts up against to 6 developed. And what I thought we heard today from 6 the east with Hyland Croy, to the south would be 7 the City of Dublin, from Mr. Hammersmith, as the 7 Post Road, that was supposed to be a dealership at 8 engineer, was no. When the question was asked, 8 that time. 9 would you allow this property to be developed as 9 COMMISSIONER McCARTHY: What zones was 10 currently zoned, I thought the answer was no. 10 upheld by your public vote? Do you remember when 11 That's what I heard. 11 that was? 12 COMMISSIONER McCARTHY: Would you agree 12 MR. THOMAS: Seven, eight years ago. I 13 with that assessment, Mr. Hammersmith? 13 couldn't give you the exact date. 14 MR. HAMMERSMITH: Yeah. I said it's 14 COMMISSIONER McCARTHY: It goes back a 15 inconsistent with our community plan. Doesn't 15 ways. 16 need to be big box retail purpose. This is within 16 SPEAKER: It was zoned, and by the time 17 earshot of about 3,000 residents of our community, 17 you get the referendum -- we hate to wait. The 18 and we don't believe that's good planning to build 18 law said we had to go to the next general, so that 19 a big box retail center adjacent to a residential 19 put it off a year, a year and a half. But it's 20 neighborhood. And that's why we proposed a mixed 20 been -- every bit of seven years. 21 use with an office and employment emphasis. 21 SPEAKER: It's been around I think 22 So to answer Mr. Hunter's question, no, 22 2002, 2003. Because there was also a variance 23 we don't believe that's the best use of the 23 issued on that property also. 24 property. And again, it's our residents that are 24 COMMISSIONER McCARTHY: And after that, Pages 45 to 48
  13. 13. Proceedings March 19, 2009 49 51 1 if I recall, there was an extension of utilities 1 SPEAKER: I didn't say it was. I said 2 to that spot. 2 that Masa property was separate, and that PUD was 3 SPEAKER: Yes, there has been. 3 granted at that time for -- the one that I know 4 COMMISSIONER McCARTHY: By who? 4 about was for the Duke Realty property which had a 5 SPEAKER: Marysville. 5 very specific design and character to it. There's 6 MR. HAMMERSMITH: Union County. 6 two -- in other words, right now it's zoned in two 7 SPEAKER: Or Union County. Excuse me. 7 different zonings, PUD, and one I believe a 8 COMMISSIONER LEE: Anyone from the 8 business characteristic. 9 public or the entities that I have called on have 9 MR. HAMMERSMITH: Honestly, I don't 10 any additional questions? 10 know the answer to this question. The May 2007 11 MR. SMITH: I just have a suggestion, 11 rezoning was for the Wirchainski property. Did it 12 if I could. Don said he's going to get some 12 include the Jacquemin property, that PUD? 13 materials together to furnish you, and I believe 13 SPEAKER: No. They're two separate 14 Marysville said they were and we were. We ought 14 pieces of property. 15 to agree that we all exchange those with each 15 MR. HAMMERSMITH: What's the current 16 other when we furnish them to you, I think that 16 zoning on the Jacquemin property? 17 would be appropriate, and to Jerome also. 17 SPEAKER: It is U-1. 18 MR. HUNTER: Just a point of 18 MR. HAMMERSMITH: It has to be rezoned. 19 clarification. The tax revenue projections we 19 SPEAKER: Correct. The discussion 20 referenced were provided to the City of Dublin 20 dealt with two pieces of property, the Masa 21 already. 21 property and the Wirchainski property which did 22 MR. SMITH: I'm like you. I don't have 22 not include the Jacquemin property. Three 23 them with me today. All I'm saying is whatever 23 separate zoning -- 24 you're going to give the board we'll give to 24 COMMISSIONER LEE: Other questions? 50 52 1 Marysville and Jerome and we should all do that. 1 MR. STOLTE: One comment. Steve 2 SPEAKER: One, the massive property 2 Stolte, citizen, private citizen. It seems to me 3 referendum was probably about 2004, because I'm 3 that the -- what's really at issue here is land 4 the one that initiated it, I double-checked from 4 use and maybe money. When it comes right down to 5 there. 5 providing water and sewer service, to provide 6 Secondly, when did it get rezoned other 6 water and sewer service to the whole of southeast 7 than to the PUD that was accepted, which at that 7 Union County will require the expenditure of 8 time did not incorporate the property from Masa? 8 millions of dollars in private and public dollars, 9 There was a PUD that was granted, I believe, for a 9 whether it's Marysville or whether it's Dublin. 10 Duke Realty. And I have heard nothing further 10 So the 208 plan, what's been approved 11 about any changes to that property other than to 11 by Ohio EPA, gives the City of Dublin the 12 the PUD that was designed by Duke Realty. Is this 12 authority to serve that area, gives Union County 13 going to be pretty much Duke Realty PUD or -- I 13 and Marysville the authority to serve that area. 14 believe they were going to try to extend part of 14 So it almost seems to me that you need to put 15 their property to Masa, to resolve a traffic 15 aside the land use issues and look at it strictly 16 problem which I think -- 16 from a water and sewer issue, if that's what 17 SPEAKER: To address that question, 17 you're voting on. Forget about the land use 18 there are two separate properties. One is zoned 18 issues and vote on just the water and sewer 19 commercial and one is zoned PUD. At this point, 19 question. 20 we don't have any applications that would 20 COMMISSIONER LEE: Other comments? 21 incorporate all of them. Everything is like 21 MR. PAGURA: I'm Steve Pagura, and I 22 Mr. Dickinson said, he might be confused on being 22 represent the Industrial Parkway Association. And 23 combined together, but it's not. It's two 23 obviously, you know, we've developed a lot of 24 separate properties. 24 property out there, and we're concerned with how Pages 49 to 52
  14. 14. Proceedings March 19, 2009 53 55 1 it affects us. We're in the middle of this. You 1 Is that not true? 2 know, if this does get done, are we blanket 2 MR. HAMMERSMITH: Unless Columbus would 3 annexed into Dublin or are we in Union County? 3 agree differently. 4 What happens to us? 4 MR. SMITH: And we're going to bring 5 COMMISSIONER LEE: To be annexed there 5 them here to talk to you. 6 would have to be an annexation procedure. 6 COMMISSIONER McCARTHY: Anything's 7 MR. SMITH: First of all, you'll always 7 possible. But all we can deal with is 8 be in Union County. Doesn't matter -- you said 8 certainties, and so I appreciate getting that 9 would you be in Dublin or Union County. Union 9 clarification. 10 County will always be where you'll be. We don't 10 COMMISSIONER LEE: I guess the question 11 have any power -- 11 is how long do we need to get this information in 12 SPEAKER: I think he meant Jerome 12 everyone's hands. I kind of follow the rule of 13 Township. 13 former Judge Parrott that we're not -- we've dealt 14 SPEAKER: Jerome Township. 14 with this issue for nearly four years. We've been 15 MR. HAMMERSMITH: Your property isn't 15 dealing with it before Dublin requested their 16 the subject of the discussion today. We're not 16 first right to serve. And I think that the 17 contemplating service to your property at this 17 Commissioners are ready and prepared to analyze 18 time. This is about two specific parcels east of 18 the information and make a decision in very 19 33, and I believe yours is west of 33. 19 short -- 20 SPEAKER: When you're showing your 20 MR. SMITH: Can I ask when are your 21 master plan, Paul, including the City of Dublin, 21 scheduled meetings? 22 would you say that you would make these 22 COMMISSIONER LEE: Every Monday and 23 improvements and then you would want that whole 23 Thursday. 24 area in the City of Dublin? 24 MR. SMITH: I would suggest that we 54 56 1 MR. HAMMERSMITH: We currently define 1 pick a time like three weeks out for your next 2 the area that we like that they have in the city. 2 meeting and two weeks out where everybody 3 SPEAKER: So we're in today. 3 exchanges information is my suggestion. Only 4 MR. HAMMERSMITH: No, you're not. 4 because -- I mean, I'm going to be gone next week. 5 You're not within a 277-acre area that we are 5 I really don't want to cancel my vacation. 6 interested in having annexed to the city. 6 MAYOR SCHMENK: Commissioners, I would 7 SPEAKER: Your master plan shows that 7 request that we reconvene next Thursday. We can 8 all the way to the west. 8 provide information within a day or two. 9 MR. HAMMERSMITH: As I said before, we 9 COMMISSIONER LEE: Mr. Hunter, what 10 don't necessarily have to require annexation to 10 about the information that's been requested of 11 provide utility service. You as a property owner 11 you? 12 get to decide whether you want to annex or not. 12 MR. HUNTER: We've already provided it 13 COMMISSIONER HALL: You can't do it 13 to all the public bodies. So it's been provided. 14 unilaterally. It has to be done with the consent 14 And we would respectfully support Mayor Schmenk's 15 of the landowner or the property owner. 15 request. We've been working on the project a 16 COMMISSIONER McCARTHY: With all due 16 great deal of time and would like to have some 17 respect, I want to make sure I understand because 17 clarity and move it forward. 18 I'm hearing -- I'm having a hard time following. 18 MR. SMITH: I would suggest to you that 19 What I heard earlier was anything's possible. We 19 a two-week delay on a project we've been working 20 can renegotiate with the City of Columbus. We can 20 on for five years, when we asked you to look at 21 negotiate with the City of Marysville and get 21 the Malcolm Pirnie study and we asked them today 22 services. But at the present time, the agreement 22 to furnish us whatever else they've done in terms 23 between Dublin and the City of Columbus would not 23 of a study that says they don't need to do that 24 allow you to serve this area without annexation. 24 anymore, I kind of find it difficult to say two Pages 53 to 56
  15. 15. Proceedings March 19, 2009 57 59 1 weeks is a long time. But you get to do -- as you 1 State of Ohio : CERTIFICATE 2 say, you're Judge Parrott today, so -- 2 County of Franklin: SS 3 COMMISSIONER McCARTHY: I would ask 3 I, Barbara Rogers, a Notary Public in and for 4 that we have submissions from everybody by next 4 the State of Ohio, do hereby certify that Cindy 5 Thursday, and we'll meet two weeks from today. 5 Knecht reported the aforementioned proceedings; 6 MR. SMITH: That would be fine. 6 that it was transcribed by me, and that the 7 COMMISSIONER HALL: I think that's long 7 foregoing is a true record of the proceedings. 8 enough. 8 I do further certify I am not a relative, 9 COMMISSIONER LEE: We will reconvene 9 employee or attorney of any of the parties hereto, 10 this hearing then -- 10 and further I am not a relative or employee of any 11 MR. SMITH: Is that April 2nd? That 11 attorney or counsel employed by the parties 12 would be fine. We'll shoot for 9:30 on the 2nd. 12 hereto, or financially interested in the action. 13 MR. SMITH: And you'd like the 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 14 information exchanged? 14 hand and affixed my seal of office at Columbus, 15 COMMISSIONER LEE: By a week from 15 Ohio, on March 23, 2009. 16 today. 16 ______________________________________________ 17 SPEAKER: Will there be additional 17 Barbara Rogers, Notary Public - State of Ohio 18 public comment allowed, or what's the format going 18 My commission expires July 10, 2009. 19 to be for that particular meeting? 19 20 COMMISSIONER McCARTHY: I think we will 20 21 always welcome public comment, and I would 21 22 respectfully ask from the folks from Dublin for -- 22 23 there's two homeowner associations, we be given 23 24 the contact information for both. 24 58 1 MR. SMITH: We'll get them to you 2 tomorrow. And we'll also tell Columbus that we'd 3 like them to be here so they can talk with you 4 also. 5 COMMISSIONER LEE: Thank you all. 6 ----- 7 Thereupon, the foregoing proceedings 8 concluded at 4:37 p.m. 9 ----- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Pages 57 to 59
  16. 16. Proceedings March 19, 2009 Page 60 ahead 24:1 41:10 approximately blessing 24:15 13:19 52:12,13 A Albany 25:4 6:15,16,20 9:7 board 34:18 auto 47:23 ability 8:3 available 14:5 allow 11:21,24 April 7:16 57:11 44:20 47:17 12:18,20 13:3 44:6,8 12:5 13:13 area 3:8,13,21 49:24 23:1 30:22 avenues 45:10 14:1 16:3 3:24 4:2,18 bodies 56:13 31:19 award 15:21 23:24 24:10 6:23 8:16,22 box 26:4 46:16 able 17:15 21:13 25:22 25:21 41:7,15 9:5,10,23 46:19 22:18 30:5 awarded 25:10 41:22 46:9 10:17,18 12:3 branch 29:4 32:14 33:14,20 27:21 32:2 54:24 12:7,15,18,23 break 38:11 44:9 38:11 44:5 aware 20:18 23:8 allowed 25:2 13:5,8,14,17 bring 39:19 41:7 absolutely 32:22 25:6 57:18 13:17,18,21,23 41:15 55:4 39:12 allowing 14:4 14:1,20 16:10 broke 42:22 abutting 18:24 B alternatives 17:12 19:10,12 build 33:15,21 accepted 8:19 24:2 19:14 20:6 39:20 46:18 baby 42:24 50:7 amend 22:22 23:1 21:19 23:3,5 building 13:24 back 4:11 5:10 access 38:4 amount 17:1 24:14,14,16 buildings 44:12 7:19 16:5 23:1 accurate 21:23 40:12 43:12 25:10,14,23 buildout 31:5 23:4 26:7 22:13 analysis 30:6 26:6 27:6,15 built 9:4 11:17 33:15 45:10 acknowledge 42:8 35:20 27:22 28:8,23 25:22 48:14 acquisition 6:21 analyze 55:17 28:24 29:2,5 burdensome 13:9 bad 17:17 acres 27:9,10,16 analyzed 33:18 29:10,17,18,22 business 16:18 balance 45:13 27:18,21 28:6 Andy 47:21 30:16 32:2 44:1 51:8 ballpark 30:7 28:15 annex 22:9,10 33:9,10,18 businesses 16:21 bank 13:11 action 59:12 24:19 30:12,16 34:19,23 35:4 butts 48:5 Barbara 59:3,17 actively 32:23 54:12 35:15,23 36:3 base 39:21,23 add 17:20 22:20 C annexation 14:14 36:5,8,12,13 44:22 23:13 34:1 14:23 20:3 36:17 39:17 based 8:7 9:10 C 3:2 59:1,1 adding 17:20 21:19,24 22:18 45:16 47:19 32:10 33:14 Cadillac 37:7 additional 5:22 22:23 23:17 52:12,13 53:24 basically 17:11 call 3:5 15:3 12:8 31:12 24:4,16,18 54:2,5,24 basis 25:18 43:13 49:10 57:17 25:11 30:14 areas 9:2,24 beginning 34:7 called 33:13 address 14:16 41:14 53:6 24:13 25:3 behalf 16:12 49:9 50:17 54:10,24 32:4 33:17 18:2 cancel 56:5 addressed 19:20 annexed 26:12 36:7,9 believe 5:7 capacity 12:18 19:21 33:11 53:3,5 54:6 argument 39:24 11:24 12:12,14 12:20 27:6,10 34:14 35:24 annexing 25:14 aside 52:15 13:5,12,15,18 27:13 28:6 adequate 19:14 answer 10:24 asked 4:23 16:11 13:22 14:1 30:22 31:2,7 adjacent 6:5 7:6 21:13 22:20 18:1,2 22:8 15:4 29:11 31:18 12:23 46:19 25:12,24 28:3 46:8 56:20,21 32:5,7,13 capital 39:18 administration 30:5 41:24 asking 20:5 34:11 35:5,17 carries 13:2 33:23 46:10,22 51:10 assessment 28:22 36:8 42:22 cart 39:15 41:10 administrator answered 25:17 46:13 46:18,23 49:13 Casto 15:7,8 11:9 35:7 answers 21:15 asset 36:13 50:9,14 51:7 Casto-Hunter adopted 26:2 anybody 18:19 assigning 42:24 53:19 15:3 39:9 affixed 59:14 anymore 56:24 Association believed 34:9 catalyst 39:6 affordable 43:6 anyone's 46:3 52:22 benefit 10:11 center 4:14 aforementioned anything's 54:19 associations benefits 10:4 46:19 59:5 55:6 19:2 57:23 best 13:21,23,24 Certainly 8:20 agenda 6:12 application assurances 10:7 14:19 21:13 certainties 55:8 ago 42:17 48:12 20:19,19 assure 42:6 43:22 46:23 certify 59:4,8 agree 24:19 31:8 applications attached 2:7 47:19 cetera 8:4 41:5,6 43:1 50:20 attempted 18:17 better 7:10 changed 17:3 45:24 46:12 appointed 11:14 Attendees 2:1,6 16:13 34:2,6 49:15 55:3 appreciate 10:21 attention 3:5 Beyond 27:12 changes 50:11 agreement 21:24 11:9 15:15,19 attorney 5:17 28:15 changing 35:1 22:10,11,17,21 20:9 42:13 16:9 59:9,11 big 19:2 26:4 character 51:5 22:23,24 23:2 55:8 auditor's 3:14 46:16,19 characteristic 23:3,17,19 approaching augmentation bigger 27:20 51:8 24:7,10 30:17 17:14 29:23 30:4 43:4 characterization 36:14 41:9,9 appropriate August 19:7 33:6 bit 45:3 48:20 31:9 54:22 49:17 35:8 blanket 53:2 characterized agreements 32:10 approved 52:10 authority 13:16 blessed 14:18 37:6 40:16

×